I first wrote about STH on 21 April 2015, exclusively exposing in my first post almost all the issues the commission says it wants the inquiry to investigate. That year, too, I revealed more about the unacceptable lack of clarity and transparency around the military charity and its business model (see my 11 August 2015 and 25 November 2015 posts, in particular). In its press release the commission says, rightly, that it has “serious concerns about an agreement that the charity has entered with a commercial fundraising company.” That unnamed company is Targeted Management Limited (TML; registered company number: 09036445) – a Blackpool firm incorporated in May 2014, whose activities this blog has exclusively exposed.

TML worked with another military charity based in the north west, the notorious Our Local Heroes Foundation (OLHF; registered charity number: 1142029). The Charity Commission announced on 8 November 2016 that it has, finally, opened a statutory inquiry into OLHF, too (see my 23 December 2016 post and references therein).

But it’s worse than that, as regular readers will know. Prior to working with TML, OLHF used the services of another discredited professional fundraiser, Prize Promotions Limited (PPL; registered company number: 07829587). And before PPL was the official professional fundraiser for OLHF, the company had this role for failed military charity Afghan Heroes (AH; registered charity number: 1132340). I first wrote about PPL and its role with AH in January 2014, just after the Charity Commission announced in December 2013 that it had opened a statutory inquiry into AH. That inquiry continues.

Oh, PPL and TML are owned by the same person: Tony Chadwick of Blackpool.

Three linked military charities – AH, OLHF and STH. Each is now the subject of a live statutory inquiry by the Charity Commission. On 2 October 2016, Andrew Gilligan in The Sunday Times reported my work on Mr Chadwick’s companies and the three linked charities (“Veterans miss out on charity millions as fundraiser keeps up to 80% of cash”). There he named me as the source and included quotes (see my 3 October 2016 post, which includes a link to Mr Gilligan’s newspaper article and the context). On 13 November 2016, Remembrance Sunday, the Mail on Sunday on its front page reported that the Charity Commission has ordered the opaque STH to stop all fundraising (“Shame of Poppy Day profiteers”): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3930982/Shame-poppy-day-profiteers-Charity-banned-crackdown-raised-3million-gave-just-250-000-heroes.html. As you can see, I’m named and quoted in the front-page story.

Jake Berry MP’s second job as a paid consultant to a multinational law firm means that it’s unclear, at the very least, in what capacity he spoke at a recent real-estate event in Manchester sponsored by the same law firm. The MP, a self-proclaimed champion of transparency, hasn’t replied to requests for comment on what I consider to be his avoidable conflict of interest. Nor has the law firm.

The breakfast meeting had two sponsors: law firm Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP and bank NatWest. The MP has a second job – as a paid consultant to, er, Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP. It’s been paying him £2 500 per month since September 2016, Mr Berry’s entry on the register of MPs’ financial interests shows.

The newspaper preview fails to mention the MP’s second job. An unfortunate omission. I’ve asked Mr Berry in emails in what capacity he spoke at the event. Was he there as MP for Rossendale and Darwen – or as an employee of Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP?

At date of publication I haven’t received a reply. Nor have I heard from Holly Carty, business development coordinator at Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP in Manchester. Ms Carty tweeted about the event on her official work account (@HACarty).

Mr Berry’s failure to respond is particularly disappointing because he’s a self-proclaimed champion of transparency: www.jakeberry.org/transparency. “If you have any questions or would like any further details please do not hesitate to contact me,” he says on that page.

It’s unclear which Mr Berry spoke at the real-estate event in Manchester last November. Yet he had an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest due to his second job. This conflict of interest risks undermining trust and confidence in the MP, as well as MPs generally. What’s worse, his is an avoidable conflict of interest.